Re: Why can’t you criticise
So can we criticize. Or can’t we.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
I have a serious problem with simplifying (if not straight up bstardisation of History in Pakistan). In some quarters, it is so convenient to pump the narrative (or propaganda rather) that Bangladeshi discontent which became a separatist campaign turned into a terrible war was all due to them not liking the Urdu language. Hence it was due Jinnah’s ‘mistake’ in 1947 that Bangladesh happened, because other than the issues over Urdu language, East Pakistan and West Pakistan was one happy marriage. To put the entire blame on Urdu language and a man who died 23 years before the fall of Dhaka happened is logical fallacy. Like I said, Bangladeshis’ issue with language was just the tip of an iceberg. It is about time, Pakistanis start learning real history and start analysing the all important concepts and realities of deep economic inequalities, political repression, structural power struggle, personal pride and egos that massively contributed to bringing upon the tragedies of 1971, and many evils that the society is still facing.
I am all for analysing and debating the decisions of founding fathers, but for sake of intellectual honesty, I believe in the practice of proportional criticism. I genuinely believe that Jinnah made the right decision at the time by declaring Urdu a national language. The decision stood corrected for a long time after his death. If it went ‘wrong’ and contributed to bad results, then we need to name those people who used and abused this decision. I can bet my house that if Jinnah was around in 1971, instead of making a nasty speech calling all Bengalis pigs - as our honourable son of soil Mr Bhutto so proudly did - he would’ve found the a perfect solution to the crisis by just issuing few signatures here and there.
The first paragraph is relevant. Everyone’s favourite ‘Quid e Azam’ would have been lynched in present day Pakistan by born again culturists, Mullahs and fake liberals for being a wanabee white man. His dogs - not his accomplishments and the appeal of his ideas - would’ve stole the headlines. How dare an old man who couldn’t ‘control’ his daughter thought he was good enough to make a country through sheer power of his advocacy? Maybe our forefathers were slightly more liberal than liberal beyond liberal characters like Nadeem F. Pracha and likes as they could look beyond ridiculing, scandalising and discrediting personal transformations.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
I do agree that Bengladesh’s separation was not just limited to language movement and one should look at other aspects like economic inequalities. One should also not blame civilians only and should also look at part of Marshal law and fraud schemes like one-unit in the name of unity of different units. But still Mr Jinah’s insistence to have Urdu national language and giving shut up calls to Bengladeshi leaders played its role in break-up of Pakistan. After Mr Jinah this attitude was followed by the leaders whom Mr Jinah himself called ‘khote sikke’.
Probably Mr Jinah did not get enough opportunity to see and take measures in respect of nasty decisions creating mistrust in some units like ‘no representation of Sindh in first cabinet’.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
Maybe if Pakistan wasn’t slapped with the Bhutto curse, a Bangladeshi Prime Minister may have a taken proper legal and democratic measures to resolve the issue of language since it was so close to his voters’ heart. If Bhutto can destroy the fabric of Pakistani society by giving them a ghastly constitution legitimising religious bigotry. What’s the worst a Bengladeshi Prime Minister could’ve done? If only he was given an opportunity to do so…
Bangladeshis were not the only ones who ‘sacrificed’ their mother tongue for a new national language, Punjabis could’ve have thrown a bigger tantrum. But still if Bengalis were not subjected to deep economic inequalities, structural discrimination and power grabbing ploys, the language issue could’ve been resolved if a genuine national debate was allowed to occur, and there was a political will to make needed amendments to take the ‘national’ language tag off Urdu language and make it an official lingua franca, or whatever. However, the past few weeks have shown how the failed status quo and their supporters have the tendency to label any anti status quo movement as an anti state rebellion, to hide their own faults and avert any sense of accountability and self reflection. People who participate in such activism are traitors and their movement is a mindless agitation. So if Bengalis were subjected to such vicious propaganda and disgraceful rejection by real takkheydaars of Jinnah’s Pakistan, then I’m glad they separated.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
why only Bhutto is hilighted for Bengaldesh separation? He just came into the picture in late 1960s and till that date the situation have seen point of no return. Bhutto did played his role, but he is not responsible for all the mess that Pakistan army and Al-shams and Al-badr did in East Pakistan, before Bhutto came with alleged ‘idhar hum, idhar tum’.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
I think there is contradiction in your post. 
Urdu decision was not strong enough for division at all. East Pakistanis had accepted that decision.
There were few other events which happened AFTER that decision that actually led to division.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
Monuments of Shaheeds in Dhaka University became a symbolism to separatist movement (obviously other issues strengthened it). BTW, Bengalis haven’t accepted that decision and they fought for language. If they had accepted that decision, we would have seen better position of Urdu in today’s Bengaldesh.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
Because the ball was in his court and he should have let Mujeeb be the PM. Mujeeb had democratically won the election. Would you agree?
His greed ultimately and decisively led to division.
ALL of the previous issues would have been negated if he had not acted stubborn power hungry man.
BTW: Al-shams and Al-Badr came in to play during the war which was already started.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
But what was patriotic army (who had authority before Bhutto and remained powerful after Bhutto) doing during that episode? What had stopped them to save the country from a disaster that too by hands of a bloody civilian?
There were people (include trade community of Karachi) who were very much in favour of this separation.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
No idea what you are saying there.
Why would you use lack of Urdu TODAY as an ‘evidence’ of Bengalis at large not accepting the decision in the PAST?
Re: Why can’t you criticise
a language remaining national language of a country (region) for around 25 years must show some acceptance in that region in form of literature. Can you provide names of Bengali writers who wrote in Urdu during those 25 years and names of few well known Urdu books by them?
Re: Why can’t you criticise
Please do not blame Karachiites for division here.
It was the result of Bhutto being greedy and not willing to concede.
Read the history sir. Karachiites had nothing to with division.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
My friend we are talking about Urdu being National Language of Pakistan. it does not matter if Bengalis were writing books in Bengali language.
Why do you expect people to give up their language just because the National Language is different?
Re: Why can’t you criticise
Acceptance of a language as national language is not just a tagging exercise. It leads to use of that language as medium of instruction, production of literature in that language, etc. I don’t think such things happened in East Pakistan. They kept on promoting Tagore and Nazrul Islam rather than admiring national poet of west Pakistan.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
You need to revisit history sir. Bhutto as an individual couldn’t do anything unless he didn’t he aasheerbad of powerful lobbies including Pakistan army and powerful trade community.
PS: trade community is not equal to all Karachiites.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
Nope. 1970 election was a defining moment for East Pakistan. They were all set to have the first Bangladeshi Prime Minster from West Pakistan to stand up for the issues they passionately campaigned for. A majority Bengali representation in the parliament would’ve finally given them the opportunity to constitutionally frame their Six Points agenda. It is frankly an incorrect assertion to say there was point of no return by 1970s, as historical evidence suggest that Mujib was was absolutely jubilant at winning the elections and he was all prepared to form the government. He attended every meeting called by Yahya and Bhutto to reach a favourable solution. However, it was Bhutto who ended every possibility of reaching the compromise. He could not accept the role of opposition leader. It was one of the generals who told Yahya that Bhutto would either die or go mad if he doesn’t become a Prime Minister within an year. But still, you are right, in many ways, the blame goes to weak and easily intimidated Yahya Khan for not putting Bhutto in his place.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
Why is this seen as an issue?
Re: Why can’t you criticise
I don’t deny that Bhutto played its role in this tragedy, but the question that we can’t answer at this time is role of powerful army and establishment to stop this all mess?
Apart from this ‘Muhamamd Ali Bogra’ and Hussain Shaheed Suharwardi remained Prime Ministers of Pakistan before 1970s elction. Suharwardi Joined Awami League in 1952.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
I was talking about acceptance of Urdu in East Pakistan and Urdu literature that produced there upto separation.
As far as considering it as an issue, it was considered as an issue in west Pakistan. Tagore was banned from Radio Pakistan due to this attachment of people from East Pakistan.
Re: Why can’t you criticise
No idea why you keep denying what is so obvious. And no idea what history books or sources you have consulted. But you are making many blunders here bhai sahab.
You are saying Urdu should have been promoted in East Pakistan but forgetting that East Pakistan was much more uniform and consistent than West Pakistan in terms of language.
Yu keep mixing up literature with National Language and that is wrong. There is no force which can be used over any person to stop using his/her language as medium if National Language is different. Period.
Making Urdu as National Language was one of the best decisions and I have written about this few years ago in one of the threads.
By no means you can use that as a criticism towards Jinnah.
OK. Lets talk about the trade community and how they were in anyways partners in division. Any proof?
it looks like you are denying the obvious here which I already mentioned.
BTW: So far, I am in agreement with Jolie here at this issue, just to clarify.